guy on a message board criticizes an All-Time Great boxer's analysis...

Why do you call Foreman "an all time Great" ....is it because he can consume and all time record in hamburgers?

Foreman's "Greatness"as far as I am concerned is because he was around in a very weak era, and because he was very strong, although unskilled, and because he was regarded as a VERY BIG heavyweight, compared to the fighters of his time. So every fight he had was a NO SKILL "shoot-out" with smaller guys, and the one who was last standing, won. That doesn't make him an "All-time Great".

Or was it because he came back in an even WEAKER period which had been cleaned up by Tyson, {who then went crazy and boozed and whored it all away-then to gaol}, put on about another 40 lbs, and fought absolute NOBODY's for a few years being lucky to get a title fight with a good-ish champion, who happened to have the weakest chin in the division, often KD'd Michael Moorer, the former Light-Heavy champ, who was also about 30 lbs lighter than Foreman for this fight.. All he needed was ONE punch, and he eventually got it.

As we ALL know, even those who call Foreman "All time Great" he lost EVERY ONE of the 10 rounds fought, by a wide margin, but took the punishment, and Moorer was silly enough to allow Foreman to hit him on the chin for a KO. It was almost the only real punch he'd landed in the fight. And from then on, he avoided anyone except "tin-cans", until beaten by....of all people...Shannon Briggs.

As a matter of fact, the way I understand it, he wasn't even Champion then, having been stripped about 3 years before for refusing to give Axel Schultz an ordered rematch after eking a dubious razor thin decision. So, in reality, Briggs was never champion either, {until he beat Sergei Lyakovitch in 2006}. After Schultz, he fought another few No-names., so his second title stint was mostly fake matchmaking with 3-4 "tin-cans". He avoided anyone even average.

I don't call Foreman and "All-time Great"....... neither should anyone else. The only outstanding thing about him was that he was boxing at a late age, for which he deserved to be complimented.

Why do you call Foreman "an all time Great" ....is it because he can consume and all time record in hamburgers?

Foreman's "Greatness"as far as I am concerned is because he was around in a very weak era, and because he was very strong, although unskilled, and because he was regarded as a VERY BIG heavyweight, compared to the fighters of his time. So every fight he had was a NO SKILL "shoot-out" with smaller guys, and the one who was last standing, won. That doesn't make him an "All-time Great".

Or was it because he came back in an even WEAKER period which had been cleaned up by Tyson, {who then went crazy and boozed and whored it all away-then to gaol}, put on about another 40 lbs, and fought absolute NOBODY's for a few years being lucky to get a title fight with a good-ish champion, who happened to have the weakest chin in the division, often KD'd Michael Moorer, the former Light-Heavy champ, who was also about 30 lbs lighter than Foreman for this fight.. All he needed was ONE punch, and he eventually got it.

As we ALL know, even those who call Foreman "All time Great" he lost EVERY ONE of the 10 rounds fought, by a wide margin, but took the punishment, and Moorer was silly enough to allow Foreman to hit him on the chin for a KO. It was almost the only real punch he'd landed in the fight. And from then on, he avoided anyone except "tin-cans", until beaten by....of all people...Shannon Briggs.

As a matter of fact, the way I understand it, he wasn't even Champion then, having been stripped about 3 years before for refusing to give Axel Schultz an ordered rematch after eking a dubious razor thin decision. So, in reality, Briggs was never champion either, {until he beat Sergei Lyakovitch in 2006}. After Schultz, he fought another few No-names., so his second title stint was mostly fake matchmaking with 3-4 "tin-cans". He avoided anyone even average.

I don't call Foreman and "All-time Great"....... neither should anyone else. The only outstanding thing about him was that he was boxing at a late age, for which he deserved to be complimented.

which era son?? the 70's era was the best in boxing history..wanna see a weak ass era..look at the era now..and foreman took moores "0" he was undefeated..foreman was the "linear champ" **** a belt and when briggs beat him he became lineal...lean the damn sport

Foreman is a jealous delusional moron. His Wlad-Haye scorecard was a fucking disgrace. I think he's upset and bitter because Team Klitschko closed the door on him and made him wait outside during the entrance.

Wladimir Klitschko vs David Haye

THE FACTS

Haye was scared shitless. He was afraid to engage with Wlad. He was in survival mode the entire fight. He was running like a scared girl from Wlad the whole fight and was flopping like a coward whenever he got close to Wlad or when he was hurt by Wlad's punches.

Wlad dominated the fight.

Wlad won every round.

Wlad controlled the entire fight.

Wlad was the aggressor from start to finish. He was the pressure fighter and was coming forward the entire fight.

Wlad made Haye look like an amatuer.

Wlad threw twice as many punches as Haye.

Wlad landed twice as many punches as Haye.

Wlad hurt Haye several times and made him spend the entire fight in survival mode running for his life and flopping like a coward.